* Steve Kille <[email protected]> [2016-12-22 12:32]: > > All this is very complicated and demands clear language and a proper spec of > > all the steps involved in an action. > I think that the approach to address this is to identify specific > points that are not clear and improve the text.
You are right of course. For me this is a bit of a chicken-egg problem. Before I can provide specific points to improve understanding of the XEP (which I hope I can find the time before the end of the year), I need to understand the intent of the XEP. > I think that 3.7 is correct. > > I do not think there is a need to attribute messages to specific > clients. From a recipient perspective, messages come from other > users. I strongly disagree. Having a proper end-to-end message attribution to clients is a requirement for many XMPP protocols, be it Chat State Notifications, Message Acks, Last Message Correction or file transfers. Once the basics are set, we could also use MIX-PM-to-ourself to synchronize the read-state of individual MIXes. IMO, providing client attribution is the main selling point for the significantly increased complexity of MIX over MUC, and reverting that won't do the protocol any good. Feel free to add this to the Brussels list. > > You get a proxy-JID assigned on join, but you need to use an unrelated, > > optional, feature to obtain it (and another two roundtrips). > I don't see this as a big deal Being a client developer, I do. If the proxy JID is to play any significant role in MIX, it needs to be easy to obtain. And as we exchange a <join> IQ anyway, we can add it there as a freebie. Georg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
